Submission
AOSIS welcomes this opportunity to present further views on the second review of the adequacy of Article 4, subparagraphs 2(a) and (b) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Convention). AOSIS strongly believes that the obligation under the UNFCCC to regularly review the adequacy of Parties' commitments in light of the best available scientific information and assessment on climate change and its impacts, and the obligation to take appropriate action in light of such a review, will continue to be central to the achievement of the Convention's objective. Without such regular reviews and adjustments, the Convention and its Protocol would quickly lose relevance in a rapidly changing world. II. Process The review required under Article 4.2(d) of the Convention is the second that Parties have undertaken. It falls in a somewhat awkward time in the operation of the Convention and related institutions, in that the COP has just concluded the Kyoto Protocol, and the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC is not yet complete. This review is, nonetheless, extremely relevant to the decisions Parties will have to take, both individually and collectively, in the near and medium term. As the globe suffers what is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history, it is essential that Parties and the international community as a whole be formally and unequivocally reminded that neither the efforts made thus far in implementing the Convention, nor the targets adopted in Kyoto last year represent an adequate effort to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at safe levels. Statements by the outgoing Chairman of the IPCC immediately following Kyoto confirmed the inadequacy of the Kyoto targets in light of the enormity of the challenges we face. III. Scope AOSIS notes that the scope of the review required by Article 4.2(d) is limited to the adequacy of the commitments of Annex 1 Parties in Article 4(a) and (b). Annex 1 Parties remain primarily responsible for the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and they must be the first to take up the responsibility to redress the situation. IV. Input to the process While the first review of the adequacy of Article 4.2(a) and (b) concluded that the provisions were indeed inadequate, AOSIS was not entirely satisfied that the subsequent Berlin Mandate was a commensurate response to the urgency and seriousness of the situation. However, AOSIS, in the spirit of compromise engaged itself actively in the process that resulted in the Kyoto Protocol. Again, AOSIS came away from Kyoto with the distinct view that not enough progress had been made in the development of the Convention regime. It is the considered opinion of AOSIS that there is a gap between what the science community recommends and the political will to take the necessary actions, especially in the industrialized countries. It is therefore important that the Convention process establishes general principles that would enhance the commitments of the Annex 1 Parties as more and better information becomes available. This position was referred to in statements by representatives of AOSIS at Kyoto as well as at the recent subsidiary body meetings in Bonn, who expressed concern at the continuing urgency and seriousness of the situation. It is clear that the Kyoto Protocol should be taken into account in the review, at the next session and in the future. But AOSIS is questioning whether the Kyoto Protocol is an adequate response to the inadequacy of the Article. Further steps will have to be taken and Annex 1 Parties can and must do more. In this regard, AOSIS is of the view that it is imperative to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol is implemented in such a manner as to achieve real and tangible reductions. If the estimated 5.2% average target is met by questionable methodologies, or by an excessive inclusion of so-called "hot air" the results of the first review of the adequacy of the Article will be further undermined. For this second review of the adequacy of Annex 1 commitments, the Secretariat should prepare, on the basis of the best available scientific information, first and second national communications of Annex 1 Parties and the results of the in-depth review of these reports, a quantified assessment of Annex 1 emissions trends, and the implications of these trends for the Convention's objective. The ground work should be set for future reviews, which must be taken at regular intervals. Further information will be required, and the first level of support must come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and from the expert institutions of the Parties. AOSIS see the Third Assessment Report and other Special Reports, as well as in-depth reviews of the National Communications from Annex 1 Parties as the most crucial documentation. V. Conclusion Annex 1 Parties must show concrete and tangible results in fulfilling their commitments under the Convention, especially to return their CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and under the Kyoto Protocol, to cut back their emissions by the year 2012 according to the targets set in the Protocol. Notwithstanding the above, Annex 1 Parties can and must do more. While much was achieved in Kyoto, there is no room for complacency. Emerging scientific evidence that climate change is indeed happening, and the devastating impacts it could have, from the forests of South East Asia, to the flood plains of China, to the blistering heat of the American summer, must continue to drive the development of the Convention and its Protocol. The COP's regular reviews must continue to provide the opportunity to raise global awareness of these issues, and to encourage the rapid ratification of the Protocol and the conscientious design of its implementation mechanisms.
